I just don't understand how people who say these things don't get shot, and the ones who say that blacks need equal employment opportunities and that racism should be abolished do.
I don't think I'd convict someone who shot this guy, if I were on a jury.
Your place for discussion about RPGs, gaming, music, movies, anime, computers, sports, and any other stuff we care to talk about...
Wow.....
- Somehow, we still tolerate each other. Eventually this will be the only forum left.
So? Aborting white republican babies would go a long way in lowering the incredible racism problem in the country too.
I think this guys theory is a bit off, it is my theory that crime is not linked to genetics, but rather linked to social status and wealth status. If we instead abort all poor peoples babies, then the crime rate would lower to an even greater degree. What's the problem with it? I believe that most people consider eugenics to be inherently evil =P
Oh and Mental, I don't necessarilly think that he should be shot, unless it is with rubber bullets at his ass, that would be funny =)
I think this guys theory is a bit off, it is my theory that crime is not linked to genetics, but rather linked to social status and wealth status. If we instead abort all poor peoples babies, then the crime rate would lower to an even greater degree. What's the problem with it? I believe that most people consider eugenics to be inherently evil =P
Oh and Mental, I don't necessarilly think that he should be shot, unless it is with rubber bullets at his ass, that would be funny =)
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
I didn't see anything wrong with his comments...who knows the full context in which it was placed?
I'd be a prick for suggesting the same thing in Africa to help stem the AIDS epidemic, or state camps for the drug addicts and mentally ill would reduce the drain on social resources...but that doesn't invalidate the end result.
I think you may be jumping the gun a bit...his comments might not have been politically palatable under any circumstances, but that doesn't exactly make him a racist. There is a definate problem with crime rates in the african american community (or, for example, an unusally high substance and sexual abuse issue in the native american population). Simply making a comment taken from statistics doesn't mean he has all of a sudden thrown logic out the window and ignoring the social, political and cultural factors that lay behind this particular statistic...
I'd be a prick for suggesting the same thing in Africa to help stem the AIDS epidemic, or state camps for the drug addicts and mentally ill would reduce the drain on social resources...but that doesn't invalidate the end result.
I think you may be jumping the gun a bit...his comments might not have been politically palatable under any circumstances, but that doesn't exactly make him a racist. There is a definate problem with crime rates in the african american community (or, for example, an unusally high substance and sexual abuse issue in the native american population). Simply making a comment taken from statistics doesn't mean he has all of a sudden thrown logic out the window and ignoring the social, political and cultural factors that lay behind this particular statistic...
Is there a context for that remark that could not be more tactfully stated by mentioning those social, political, and cultural factors as opposed to race itself?
The problem with his statement as I see it is that by mentioning race, he is implying that crime is connected to being black in and of itself, as opposed to poverty, socioeconomic status, cultural differences that prevent integration into some areas of society, emotional legacies of slavery that persist to this day (and I am one that believes these certainly still exist in abundance), or other factors that cause crime. If he meant that poverty is a causal factor in crime, then saying that is a far less racially incendiary statement than what he said.
I'm having a hard time imagining a context in which that remark could be construed without carrying the implication that there is something more intrinsically criminal about blacks than other races. If you do have one, please let me know.
I don't dispute the statistic that crime is higher in the African-American community. I do, however, dispute the idea that it is because of something innate in black people, rather than social, political, and cultural causes, as you said.
The problem with his statement as I see it is that by mentioning race, he is implying that crime is connected to being black in and of itself, as opposed to poverty, socioeconomic status, cultural differences that prevent integration into some areas of society, emotional legacies of slavery that persist to this day (and I am one that believes these certainly still exist in abundance), or other factors that cause crime. If he meant that poverty is a causal factor in crime, then saying that is a far less racially incendiary statement than what he said.
I'm having a hard time imagining a context in which that remark could be construed without carrying the implication that there is something more intrinsically criminal about blacks than other races. If you do have one, please let me know.
I don't dispute the statistic that crime is higher in the African-American community. I do, however, dispute the idea that it is because of something innate in black people, rather than social, political, and cultural causes, as you said.
You are making a big leap there...the inclusion of race doesn't automatically negate consideration of the other factors you mention.
I didn't find a full transcript, so I don't know the context of that small quote. I can imagine serveral topics that would at least make it relevant...however, saying something like that in politics is a big no-no under any circumstances.
Best he can be 100% guilty of so far, from what I've seen, is being incredibly stupid.
I didn't find a full transcript, so I don't know the context of that small quote. I can imagine serveral topics that would at least make it relevant...however, saying something like that in politics is a big no-no under any circumstances.
Best he can be 100% guilty of so far, from what I've seen, is being incredibly stupid.
Well, I wouldn't argue with that at all.
The thing is, what he's mentioning, if it were to become a reality, is practically eugenics. And the basic problem with eugenics is that it transfers the right of reproductive choice to a society, as opposed to the individual. The choice to have children or not is something that I would argue is very, very important to a number of people, because I do think that for many, many people, children are one of the great joys of life to have (and, even sometimes, raise). Not everyone, but many.
When you start interfering with that, you make many people angry very fast. I certainly do not trust the government of any country I know to make a more beneficial choice as to whether or not I am qualified to have children than I can.
I know the context of the conversation may not have implied actual policy based on this (though it may easily have, as well), but even the idea of what he's talking about would be considered by many to be a violation of a fundamental human right.
I would appreciate hearing some of your choices on topics that would make what he said seem less biased towards all blacks. I still can't think of any.
The thing is, what he's mentioning, if it were to become a reality, is practically eugenics. And the basic problem with eugenics is that it transfers the right of reproductive choice to a society, as opposed to the individual. The choice to have children or not is something that I would argue is very, very important to a number of people, because I do think that for many, many people, children are one of the great joys of life to have (and, even sometimes, raise). Not everyone, but many.
When you start interfering with that, you make many people angry very fast. I certainly do not trust the government of any country I know to make a more beneficial choice as to whether or not I am qualified to have children than I can.
I know the context of the conversation may not have implied actual policy based on this (though it may easily have, as well), but even the idea of what he's talking about would be considered by many to be a violation of a fundamental human right.
I would appreciate hearing some of your choices on topics that would make what he said seem less biased towards all blacks. I still can't think of any.
I would label this as racism for the following reason. First of all his suggestion implies that due to the fact that people are black that they are somehow likely to be criminals based on their race. He does not take into account that it is mainly due to a large low/no income urban class/culture which is largely populated by blacks but also contains people of other races as well. Not everyone in this urban class are criminals either.
Anyways, from this guys suggestion he suggests that all blacks are a part of this class/culture and are criminals; that all people in the urban class/culture are black. It proves he is ignorant, and ignorance doesn't automatically mean he is innocent from being racist; ignorance is the core of racism. If the guy of this age wasn't racist, then likely he would have realized after 60? 70? years, AND spending a career in education, that not all blacks are a part of this class, and that not everyone in this class/culture are criminals.
Personally, I'd like to read the history of how this urban society came about in the first place. I think if this was taught in schools it would go a long way to educating people of the real issue at hand. I have always liked the culture, personally. There are some great songs that have come out of it which even discuss the problems and feelings they have had, Changes by Tupac, more recently Walk With Me by Joe Budden, and oh yeah, that song by that black guy Eminem called Rock Bottom that came out in the 90's.
Do I have a problem with this guy? Not really, I don't think anyone except racists would actually take this guy seriously and see him as anything more than being cracked. What do we care about that? They're already racist! Children could be a problem, but how many kids want to listen to a boring old fart?
Anyways, from this guys suggestion he suggests that all blacks are a part of this class/culture and are criminals; that all people in the urban class/culture are black. It proves he is ignorant, and ignorance doesn't automatically mean he is innocent from being racist; ignorance is the core of racism. If the guy of this age wasn't racist, then likely he would have realized after 60? 70? years, AND spending a career in education, that not all blacks are a part of this class, and that not everyone in this class/culture are criminals.
Personally, I'd like to read the history of how this urban society came about in the first place. I think if this was taught in schools it would go a long way to educating people of the real issue at hand. I have always liked the culture, personally. There are some great songs that have come out of it which even discuss the problems and feelings they have had, Changes by Tupac, more recently Walk With Me by Joe Budden, and oh yeah, that song by that black guy Eminem called Rock Bottom that came out in the 90's.
Do I have a problem with this guy? Not really, I don't think anyone except racists would actually take this guy seriously and see him as anything more than being cracked. What do we care about that? They're already racist! Children could be a problem, but how many kids want to listen to a boring old fart?
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Ya well, if there is one thing I learned observing politics over the years, it that your rivals (and the media) are more than happy to twist any small quote to their advantage. You guys are writing paragraphs of counter points and way to quick to judge him as a racist. Stupidity and racism go hand in hand, but you can be exclusively stupid as well. I think you are reading way too much into a fed single sound byte...not enough of the story (from that one article) to start suggesting racist and calling for his head.
/shrug
/shrug
Definitely a case of political suicide.
"An old man dies, a young girl lives, fair trade." - Bruce Willis from Sin City.
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/imakeholesinu][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/imakeholesinu.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.myspace.com/atmosphere][img]http://rhymesayers.com/promo/banners/youcant-banner.gif[/img][/url]
[url=http://profile.xfire.com/imakeholesinu][img]http://miniprofile.xfire.com/bg/bg/type/0/imakeholesinu.png[/img][/url]
[url=http://www.myspace.com/atmosphere][img]http://rhymesayers.com/promo/banners/youcant-banner.gif[/img][/url]
I was thinking that there really wasn't anyway that his comment could be taken out of context, but I read the full text from the article and there you go.
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.
"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.
Still, it was a ballsy thing to say in any case, and to think that he wouldn't get any flak for it is just ignorant.
"If you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose -- you could abort every black baby in this country and your crime rate would go down.
"That would be an impossibly ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down," he said.
Still, it was a ballsy thing to say in any case, and to think that he wouldn't get any flak for it is just ignorant.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
I was just thinking I needed to post something about this, since I basically did what all the idiot Congressional Dems did and only heard the quote I wanted to, without reading the actual article.
Dammit, Kali, why do you have to be right when I'm trying to get a head of righteous wrath on? (kidding) But yes, having read the rest of it, I agree with you now.
Dammit, Kali, why do you have to be right when I'm trying to get a head of righteous wrath on? (kidding) But yes, having read the rest of it, I agree with you now.
Thing about this quote is, even if you take the entire quote (as Sine posted), there's STILL a fairly clear bias/discrimination towards black people. Basically, he's saying that black people cause a lot of crime. Yeah, you can easily say that simply taking people out of the equation would reduce crime, whehter they're black or not, so thus, this is true. If you interchange any other race in there, it would still be a true statment.
But the simple fact of the matter is, he specifically stated black people; not whites, hispanics, or any other race. So why point out blacks? I'm sure there are tons of other races that commit such crimes and, if interchanged, would make the statment true. The only logical conclusion is that he has a bias. It might be backed by truth, I'm not a US criminal expert, but it's still a bias.
Although I agree with Kali that the media and other politicians have blown it out of context a bit, the original comment is still very suspect. There's an air of reason behind the concern, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as malicious as they're making it out to be.
At the end of the day, it's a stupid comment, period. As a politician, I would expect him to know better.
But the simple fact of the matter is, he specifically stated black people; not whites, hispanics, or any other race. So why point out blacks? I'm sure there are tons of other races that commit such crimes and, if interchanged, would make the statment true. The only logical conclusion is that he has a bias. It might be backed by truth, I'm not a US criminal expert, but it's still a bias.
Although I agree with Kali that the media and other politicians have blown it out of context a bit, the original comment is still very suspect. There's an air of reason behind the concern, but it doesn't appear to be nearly as malicious as they're making it out to be.
At the end of the day, it's a stupid comment, period. As a politician, I would expect him to know better.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
Zeus wrote:Thing about this quote is, even if you take the entire quote (as Sine posted), there's STILL a fairly clear bias/discrimination towards black people. Basically, he's saying that black people cause a lot of crime. Yeah, you can easily say that simply taking people out of the equation would reduce crime, whehter they're black or not, so thus, this is true. If you interchange any other race in there, it would still be a true statment.
Yeah, except it wouldn't be as true. Whether you like it or not, blacks commit the most crime out of any race in America. It's pure statistics, and they don't lie. Blacks are also are among the poorest, so you can easily make a correlation there.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
I don't see it as blacks commiting the most crime in the US. I see it more as a larger % of the population of blacks occuppy the socio-economic class which is responsible for most of the crime in the US. So therefore targeting the race wouldn't really be targeting the problem, but rather targeting the class which is the problem; as I explained above. Listen to some of the music that comes out of that culture, and understanding will be easier to see their mindset and why they commit the crimes they do.
The second part of the paragraph still would have the same meaning and impact, but the race related part can be seen as an independent part of the equation. There really is no reason why he should have mentioned that, and why would he even suggest such a horrible thing when even he agrees that it is a horrible thing?
The second part of the paragraph still would have the same meaning and impact, but the race related part can be seen as an independent part of the equation. There really is no reason why he should have mentioned that, and why would he even suggest such a horrible thing when even he agrees that it is a horrible thing?
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
I don't disagree. I'm just saying that, if you take the quote literally, you could add in any race and it would be true since each race has a lot of vandals and crooks. But he chose blacks, so obviously there's a bias/discrimination in there, as was pointed out by his rivals and the medai. That's all I was saying. Whether or not blacks commit the most crimes or not isn't the issue. As a politician, he should know better than to leave such an easy target on his back.SineSwiper wrote:Zeus wrote:Thing about this quote is, even if you take the entire quote (as Sine posted), there's STILL a fairly clear bias/discrimination towards black people. Basically, he's saying that black people cause a lot of crime. Yeah, you can easily say that simply taking people out of the equation would reduce crime, whehter they're black or not, so thus, this is true. If you interchange any other race in there, it would still be a true statment.
Yeah, except it wouldn't be as true. Whether you like it or not, blacks commit the most crime out of any race in America. It's pure statistics, and they don't lie. Blacks are also are among the poorest, so you can easily make a correlation there.
I was there on that fateful day, were you?
He said that one way to lower crime rates would be to abort all black babies. But it isn't true that all black babies are susceptable to becoming criminals, only the ones born into the lower class urban society; and it doesn't matter what race you are, it just happens that blacks make up a large portion of that society at this point in time. What he should have said, to be more accurate would be, "If we aborted all urban lower urban classed societies babies, then there would be a lot less crime in the country; but that would be a horrible and unthinkable thing to do." That way, the comment is now accurate and not racist. Still horrible though =P
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Well, I heard the comment was made while Bennett discussed a point made in some book that said that the increase in abortion rate has lead to decreased crime. Bennett clumsily tries to show that such thinking can lead to insane conclusions and uses the "abort every black baby" thing to back up his point(i.e. aborting all black babies would reduce crime,but is a stupid idea). To his credit he does immediately say that such a thing is morally reprehensible and absurd...though one has to wonder what kind of simplistic thinking would lead him to use that particular ham handed example.
So, what you're saying is that it's not okay to be racist, but it's perfectly fine to be classist?The Seeker wrote:He said that one way to lower crime rates would be to abort all black babies. But it isn't true that all black babies are susceptable to becoming criminals, only the ones born into the lower class urban society
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
way to selectively quote. the same thing they diid to that ass. seeker makes a good point for the first time in his life and you have to be a jerk about it..... meanieSo, what you're saying is that it's not okay to be racist, but it's perfectly fine to be classist?
Not really. He's suggesting to go from one extremist quote to another extremist quote, all the while it removes the bite out of the comment the Senator was trying to make.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
No, it is not even a concern of my post as to whether classism or racism are alright or not. Just the fact of the matter of whether this guy is racist or not.SineSwiper wrote:So, what you're saying is that it's not okay to be racist, but it's perfectly fine to be classist?The Seeker wrote:He said that one way to lower crime rates would be to abort all black babies. But it isn't true that all black babies are susceptable to becoming criminals, only the ones born into the lower class urban society
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Let's just say that the guy isn't racist, and leave it at that.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Good argument style. Lets just say that Jesus Christ is the true Christian Lord and saviour and that all non-believers are damned to eternal hell, and leave it at that. =)SineSwiper wrote:Let's just say that the guy isn't racist, and leave it at that.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
Well I'm screwed.The Seeker wrote:Good argument style. Lets just say that Jesus Christ is the true Christian Lord and saviour and that all non-believers are damned to eternal hell, and leave it at that. =)SineSwiper wrote:Let's just say that the guy isn't racist, and leave it at that.
Well, it's obvious if you read the whole quote. I don't understand why just because saying a factually correct statement is considered to be racist, even when he says that it's an immoral thing to do anyway. Saying something like that which is wrong is racist, because it's a poor attempt to make one race feel superior when it's actually a lie.
Besides, words aren't racist. It's the racist asshole who's saying them who is racist. It's about a "belief", not saying something. I was arguing that because you changed the comment from a "racist" remark to a classist one, it really doesn't change it at all. So, if he said your changed comment, he would be accused of classism instead of racism. (In reality, nobody would care, because nobody cares about the #1 social problem in the world: classism.)
You're basically calling the guy a racist based on one sentence. You can't accurately do that. If he said something like "I think all niggers should be mowed down with uzis.", you might have better footing to hold unto. As it is, he was introducing a hypothetical situation, THAT HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, and accurately predicted the results. That's not racism. That's scientific discussion of a contraversal subject.
Besides, words aren't racist. It's the racist asshole who's saying them who is racist. It's about a "belief", not saying something. I was arguing that because you changed the comment from a "racist" remark to a classist one, it really doesn't change it at all. So, if he said your changed comment, he would be accused of classism instead of racism. (In reality, nobody would care, because nobody cares about the #1 social problem in the world: classism.)
You're basically calling the guy a racist based on one sentence. You can't accurately do that. If he said something like "I think all niggers should be mowed down with uzis.", you might have better footing to hold unto. As it is, he was introducing a hypothetical situation, THAT HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY AGREE WITH, and accurately predicted the results. That's not racism. That's scientific discussion of a contraversal subject.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Amen and praise hallelujiah to that, bud. Let's you and me throw a party when we get down there in the fire and brimstone.Eric wrote:Well I'm screwed.The Seeker wrote:Good argument style. Lets just say that Jesus Christ is the true Christian Lord and saviour and that all non-believers are damned to eternal hell, and leave it at that. =)SineSwiper wrote:Let's just say that the guy isn't racist, and leave it at that.
Well, what is written on CNN isn't the full quote either. Here's the full quote:
"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
He does seem to discriminate here, that aborting every black baby in the country would reduce crime. Also, given what we know about his literary past, writing books about morals, moral support for the war on terrorism, etc.. And how he has not acknowledged that he believes that aborting black babies to reduce crime would be racist, but rather acknowledged that abortion for the purpose of reducing crime is immoral. I believe that people would definitely be justified in their belief that this guy is racist.
Where he stated that abortion for the purpose of lowering crime was a no-no. But I haven't seen any evidence that he does not agree that crime is linked to race, which is what he seems to be being accused of.
"Responding later to criticism, Bennett said his comments had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was "morally reprehensible.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_ ... nnett_race
"I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."
He does seem to discriminate here, that aborting every black baby in the country would reduce crime. Also, given what we know about his literary past, writing books about morals, moral support for the war on terrorism, etc.. And how he has not acknowledged that he believes that aborting black babies to reduce crime would be racist, but rather acknowledged that abortion for the purpose of reducing crime is immoral. I believe that people would definitely be justified in their belief that this guy is racist.
Where he stated that abortion for the purpose of lowering crime was a no-no. But I haven't seen any evidence that he does not agree that crime is linked to race, which is what he seems to be being accused of.
"Responding later to criticism, Bennett said his comments had been mischaracterized and that his point was that the idea of supporting abortion to reduce crime was "morally reprehensible.""
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_ ... nnett_race
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
So, he's a racist unless proven otherwise. I disagree. He's only a racist when he's proven to be a racist, and innocent otherwise. Your circular logic doesn't work.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
He made a discrinatory comment about black people. He's been accused of racism and has not denied that he is a racist. Why should I think otherwise?SineSwiper wrote:So, he's a racist unless proven otherwise. I disagree. He's only a racist when he's proven to be a racist, and innocent otherwise. Your circular logic doesn't work.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
He doesn't have to deny being a racist. The guy didn't admit it, either through direct or indirect commentary. It wasn't a discriminatory comment, either. It was accurate, therefore it wasn't discriminatory, and he condemned the action, anyway.
I can't believe I'm having such a long assed discussion over a simple matter.
I can't believe I'm having such a long assed discussion over a simple matter.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
I don't think we're going to agree on this matter. His statement is discriminatory because it pushes forth a stereotype based on race, it is also not very accurate as I explained above; there are far more accurate statements he could have made. Essentially this is what I am hearing from him in short:SineSwiper wrote:He doesn't have to deny being a racist. The guy didn't admit it, either through direct or indirect commentary. It wasn't a discriminatory comment, either. It was accurate, therefore it wasn't discriminatory, and he condemned the action, anyway.
I can't believe I'm having such a long assed discussion over a simple matter.
-I do know we would lower the crime rate by aborting all black babies, but I disagree with using abortion for the purpose of lowering crime.-
This shows that he believes that black people are more likely to commit crimes than other racial groupings. He believes that aborting black babies will lower crime. The problem he sees is not with the act of eugenics, but rather with abortion for that particular purpose. He does not disagree with his statement at all, just the morality behind abortion. Therefore he is discriminating.
-Insert Inspiring Quote-
It's not a morality against abortion, but against the entire idea of abortion based on race. And yes, it is accurate. Black commit the most crime, mainly because many blacks are poor, and poverty leads to crime in a lot of cases. I'm not going to fault the guy for not taking the time to engineer a politically-correct phrase when he was trying to make a bold statement in the first place.
Rosalina: But you didn't.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Robert: But I DON'T.
Rosalina: You sure that's right?
Robert: I was going to HAVE told you they'd come?
Rosalina: No.
Robert: The subjunctive?
Rosalina: That's not the subjunctive.
Robert: I don't think the syntax has been invented yet.
Rosalina: It would have had to have had been.
Robert: Had to have...had...been? That can't be right.
Got statistics to back that up? I'm not saying it's false, but I wouldn't want to make a statement like that without being DAMNED sure it was 100% factual.
I live in L.A. We got black looters, Chicano looters, white looters...my guess is we have criminals in just about any color scheme you might desire. One of my favorite sayings is "stupidity knows no color boundary...or perhaps all of them."
I live in L.A. We got black looters, Chicano looters, white looters...my guess is we have criminals in just about any color scheme you might desire. One of my favorite sayings is "stupidity knows no color boundary...or perhaps all of them."
That is not what he said. He did not say anything about it being based on race, buit rather based on lowering crime.SineSwiper wrote:It's not a morality against abortion, but against the entire idea of abortion based on race..
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050930/ap_ ... nnett_race
-Insert Inspiring Quote-